DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 August 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
As directed by the amendment filed on 11 August 2025: claim(s) 1 and 12 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding the argument that "There is a post that serves as an extension of the wand, but no carrier that supports the sponge" & "the present invention has a carrier that supports all but the outer periphery of the sponge", Pryor’s sponge mounting portion 35 is interpreted as the carrier (see FIG. 3). Pryor’s sponge mounting portion 35 supports all but the outer periphery of the sponge (col. 4 ln. 7-24; FIG. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor, III (US 5774925 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Pryor, III discloses a tongue sponge for improving oral care (see Abstract) comprising:
a wand ("hand-hold portion 21"; col. 4 ln. 10; FIG. 3) having an attachment post ("handle mounting portion 26"; col. 4 ln. 10; FIG. 3) positioned at one end thereof (see FIG. 3),
a carrier ("sponge mounting portion 35"; col. 4 ln. 12; FIG. 3) for removably and replaceably coupling to the attachment post ("two pieces remain together through friction between the handle mounting portion 26 and the tubular section 36 of the sponge mounting portion 35"; col. 4 ln. 22-24; FIG. 3); and
a sponge head ("sterile sponge 30"; col. 4 ln. 8; FIG. 3) having a head receptacle for receiving the carrier in a fixed position ("sterile sponge 30 is mounted to a sponge mounting portion 35 through any suitable fastening means"; col. 4 ln. 11-13; FIG. 3), with an outwardly facing surface of the sponge head extending outwardly around the entire carrier ("sterile sponge 30 is formed around the sponge attachment portion 24"; col. 3 ln. 46-47; FIG. 1-3),
wherein the carrier 35 has a shape that substantially matches the shape of the sponge head 30 and a size substantially similar to the shape of the sponge head 30 but smaller than the sponge head, with the sponge head 30 being sized to fit closely over the carrier 35 so that outer edges of the sponge head abut one another around an outer edge of the carrier (col. 4 ln. 7-24; FIG. 3).
Pryor fails to specify when the post is inserted into the carrier, the post is positioned inside the sponge head. However, the instant disclosure fails to demonstrate criticality of this limitation (see pg. 6 of instant Specifications). Furthermore, Pryor’s device would not have operated or functioned differently with the claimed dimension, being still able to be used as an oral hygiene device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Pryor to incorporate the claimed dimensions of the post/carrier since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding Claim 3, Pryor, III discloses the sponge head comprises a first side member and a second side member, and the carrier is positioned between the first side member and the second side member, with the first and second side members of the sponge head being joined together at at least part of a periphery thereof (see FIGs. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 4, Pryor, III discloses the carrier has two opposed sides, and the carrier is adhered to the first side member of the sponge head on one side thereof and to the second side member of the sponge head on the other side thereof ("sterile adhesive also bonds the sterile sponge directly to the sponge attachment portion"; col. 2 ln. 35-36; FIG. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Pryor, III discloses the sponge head outwardly facing surface comprises two faces that are opposed to one another and are welded together at their periphery (see FIG. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Pryor, III discloses each face of the sponge head has an inner surface, and the inner surface of each sponge face is adhered to the carrier ("sterile adhesive also bonds the sterile sponge directly to the sponge attachment portion"; col. 2 ln. 35-36; FIG. 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Pryor, III discloses the carrier is configured to snap onto the attachment post of the wand and to be removable from the attachment post ("two pieces remain together through friction between the handle mounting portion 26 and the tubular section 36 of the sponge mounting portion 35"; col. 4 ln. 22-24; FIG. 3).
Regarding Claim 8, Pryor, III discloses the wand is curved when viewed from the side thereof (see FIG. 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Pryor, III discloses the carrier 35 includes a carrier receptable 38 and an outer web extending outwardly from the carrier receptacle ("sponge attachment section typically, but not always, contains several substantially cylindrical holes 25"; col. 3 ln. 43-45; FIGs. 1-3), and the outer web is sized to seat inside the sponge head (see FIG. 3).
Regarding Claim 12, Pryor, III discloses an apparatus for improving oral care (see Abstract) comprising:
a wand ("hand-hold portion 21"; col. 4 ln. 10; FIG. 3) having a length and a width (see FIG. 3), with an attachment head ("handle mounting portion 26"; col. 4 ln. 10; FIG. 3) positioned at one end thereof (see FIG. 3),
a dual faced sponge head ("sterile sponge 30"; col. 4 ln. 8; FIG. 3) comprising
a first sponge side having a first outwardly facing surface, a first inner surface, and a first outer periphery (see FIG. 3); and
a second sponge side having a second outwardly facing surface, a second inner surface, and a second outer periphery (see FIG. 3), with the first and second sides of the sponge being joined around at least part of the first and second outer peripheries and defining a cavity between the first and second sponge sides (see FIG. 3); and
a carrier ("sponge mounting portion 35"; col. 4 ln. 12; FIG. 3) having a carrier receptacle for mating with the attachment head of the wand ("smaller mounting end 28 of the handle mounting portion 26 is inserted into the tubular section 36 of the sponge mounting portion 35"; col. 4 ln. 20-22; FIG. 3) and seated between the first and second sponge sides (see FIG. 3), said carrier holding the sponge head on the wand ("sterile sponge 30 is mounted to a sponge mounting portion 35 through any suitable fastening means"; col. 4 ln. 11-13; FIG. 3) and
having a shape that substantially mirrors and shape of the sponge head 30 to impart rigidity to the sponge head 30 during use and the dual faced sponge head at the inner periphery of the inner surfaces thereof mate together only around an outer periphery of the carrier (col. 4 ln. 7-24; FIG. 3).
Pryor fails to specify the attachment head seats entirely inside the carrier when installed therein. However, the instant disclosure fails to demonstrate criticality of this limitation (see pg. 6 of instant Specifications). Furthermore, Pryor’s device would not have operated or functioned differently with the claimed dimension, being still able to be used as an oral hygiene device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Pryor to incorporate the claimed dimensions of the post/carrier since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding Claim 13, Pryor, III discloses the carrier 35 is sized to seat in the cavity between the first and second sponge sides, and the first sponge side is welded to the second sponge side (see FIG. 3).
Regarding Claim 14, Pryor, III discloses the first sponge side has a size that is substantially the same as the second sponge side (see FIG. 2).
Regarding Claim 15, Pryor, III discloses the carrier 35 is adhered to the first and second sponge sides ("sterile adhesive also bonds the sterile sponge directly to the sponge attachment portion"; col. 2 ln. 35-36; FIG. 2).
Regarding Claim 16, Pryor, III discloses the carrier 35 has a web extending outwardly from the carrier receptacle ("sponge attachment section typically, but not always, contains several substantially cylindrical holes 25"; col. 3 ln. 43-45; FIGs. 1-3) and the web is a strengthening member for the sponge head ("cylindrical holes 25 to facilitate the fastening means"; col. 3 ln. 44-45).
Regarding Claim 17, Pryor, III discloses the carrier is configured to snap around the attachment head ("smaller mounting end 28 of the handle mounting portion 26 is inserted into the tubular section 36 of the sponge mounting portion 35"; col. 4 ln. 20-22; FIG. 3).
Regarding Claim 18, Pryor, III discloses the carrier is removable from the attachment head ("two pieces remain together through friction between the handle mounting portion 26 and the tubular section 36 of the sponge mounting portion 35"; col. 4 ln. 22-24; FIG. 3).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor, III in view of Rueb (US 4683604 A).
Regarding Claim 2, Pryor, III disclose the attachment post and the carrier but fails to specify the attachment post is substantially rectangular in shape and has a recessed channel positioned at a bottom end thereof, and the recessed channel permits the carrier to snap around the attachment post. However, Rueb teaches a toothbrush comprising a detachable snap-on carrier (see Abstract) wherein the attachment post (“handle 2”; col. 4 ln. 45; FIG. 1) is substantially rectangular in shape (see FIGs. 1-6) and has a recessed channel (“undercuts 16”; col. 5 ln. 16; FIG. 3) positioned at a bottom end thereof (see FIG. 1), and the recessed channel 16 permits the carrier 3 to snap around the attachment post 2 (col. 6 ln. 60-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pryor, III’s device to incorporate the claimed features to enable easy replacement of the carrier and the reusability of the handle (col. 1 ln. 13-29).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor, III in view of Bärtschi et al. (US 20190117356 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Pryor, III disclose the carrier receptacle and the attachment post but fails to specify the carrier receptacle has at least one longitudinally extending slit therethrough that permits the carrier to flex around the attachment post. However, Bärtschi teaches a personal care appliance with a separable handle and a plug-on part attached to the handle (see Abstract) wherein the receptacle of the carrier (“circumferential recesses 76”; [0545]; FIG. 3c) has at least one longitudinally extending slit therethrough ("recess 67"; [0499]; FIG. 3c & 3d) that permits the carrier to flex around the attachment post ("pull-off weight is set depending on the tolerance between the two elements and depending on the associated choice of material"; [0499]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Pryor, III’s device to incorporate the claimed features to achieve “the desired holding strength or the pull-off weight” ([0024]).
Claim(s) 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor, III in view of Rimkus (US 6015293 A).
Regarding Claims 11 and 19, Pryor, III disclose the sponge head but fails to specify the sponge head includes/receives an oral care solution. However, Rimkus teaches a disposable oral cleaning apparatus comprising a separable carrier (see Abstract; FIG. 9) wherein the sponge head includes/receives an oral care solution (“absorbent portion 28a can be saturated in a medication, antiseptic or other cleansing solution and utilized as an applicator to apply solutions to the tongue's upper surface”; col. 6 ln. 7-9; FIG. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Pryor, III’s device to incorporate the claimed features “to eliminate oral bacteria and bad breath” (see Abstract).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor, III in view of Kramer et al. (US 4847089 A).
Regarding Claims 20, Pryor, III disclose the sponge head but fails to specify the sponge head is coated with an antibacterial solution that is activated when wetted. However, Kramer teaches sponges impregnated with disinfecting compositions (col. 2 ln. 17-30) wherein the sponge head (“sponge”; col. 7 ln. 64) is coated with an antibacterial solution (“cleansing and disinfecting compositions”; col. 7 ln. 61) that is activated when wetted (“impregnated absorbent material is activated for use by being contacted with a solvent such as water”; col. 8 ln. 7-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Pryor, III’s device to incorporate the claimed features to allow the sponges to have a long shelf life and be activated by the addition of water (see Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references provided on the attached PTO-892 form are considered relevant to applicant’s disclosure and are cited to further show the general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cheng Fong "Ted" Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-8846. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm (EST) M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca E. Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Cheng Fong "Ted" Yang
Examiner
Art Unit 3781
/REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781